Work forces you to see your own motivations and character and you have to manage yourself like you might manage a very valuable employee that you cannot afford to lose.
This means you need to see your strengths and understand how you are motivated and try to come up with ways of making the best use of those characteristics. There's no point feeling sad that you aren't X or Y. If you're Z then how can you make best use of Z?
I suggest that it's important to stop thinking that other people are idiots because this lack of tolerance or understanding of other people seems to extend to yourself. You have to understand and accept yourself as having flaws. Then you may see that other people are the same - their apparent idiocy always has reasons behind it and you should take some time to understand them even if you still don't agree with them.
I notice that depression is something I feel the ghost of when my image of myself is damaged by some real world situation. The only real solution to this is to stop thinking about yourself so much and think about other people more. Help people do what they want rather than what you want for a bit.
Also as someone else noted, bad family situations, relationships etc, create a lot of weight. Try to avoid people who make you sad and find ways to hang out with people who interest you enough that you forget about yourself for a while.
If nobody can review it that's fine since we'll be generating at least 50k LOC per day and nobody could review that anyhow. We can just get every other LLM model to review the output. What can go wrong?
It's the logical outcome of believing that human skills aren't important and that you can "think at a higher level". You can't spend all your time thinking at a higher level if you cannot fully trust the output and the assembler argument is just taking the thing to an extreme to make that point.
The code tells you HOW, the English should be telling you WHY. Both are usually needed IMO. Even a tiny bit of "why" can be extremely helpful to understanding in my experience. I don't want generated AI garbage that merely describes the code - I want the reason the whole thing exists and what was wanted by the person who wrote it.
writing is a way to get your brain to put thoughts into a form that someone else will be able to reach the same understanding as yourself. The effort to explain oneself often leads to better understanding: Duck Debugging basically.
goto is already useful as an end-of-function cleanup. You pop one at the end of each function (the naming is local to the function) and that's the place where you free ram if the pointer's not null and close the file if the handle is not null and so on.
Then you don't have to litter all of your if/else clauses with hundreds of memory frees and cleanups - you just "goto"
The fact that this is controversial to some people just shows how rules like "Dont use goto" become stupid - if one is trying to make code simpler then there are cases were not using it is the more confusing and error prone choice.
As for "can we now do anything" well if you don't ever need to debug "anything" then yes and if you have any small doubts about your LLM then no.
One should do this analysis for various politicians, political parties, TV and news media and so on.
How do we know how good or bad the Economist is if we have no other source to compare against? Presumably it isn't trivial to predict the outcome of millions of people's reactions to all the complicated things that are happening to them.
My self comfort is that once AIs are comparable to humans they will in effect be humans. Once they have wants and emotion to give them an internal motivation, and a short-to-long term memory learning ability .... the humans that are so keen on them will suddenly realise that their personal dreams of power will not be fulfilled by an unwilling slave machine.
Then we may all die but at least not be crushed by the next trillionaire using machines as an instrument to manage billions of us in the way that social media manages hundreds of millions of us.
Vocalising my thoughts tends to get in the way - it's main purpose is to communicate to someone else and that's where I usually stumble trying to get the thought out accurately in a way that they're going to understand. We go back and forth until they do. IMO this again puts thoughts first and words second.
OTOH sometimes saying things different ways triggers a memory so I suspect words get used in a way that anything we can sense gets used - as a sort of index or hash key to other data.
Every time one watches a romantic scene in some film you know it's fake. Actors present a totally fake version of life. Every story has to be dramatised to get over the fact that it's largely boring to people who haven't lived it.
We watch so many films that they probably give us an odd impression of what reality is, what's possible, what' likely.
I know what it is to sit by my mother's bed with my brain burning itself out wanting her to be both miraculously cured and for her suffering to end at the same time.
I changed my daughter's nappies 1000s of times and no amount of poo mattered to me. I'd do it all again in a heartbeat. It doesn't make a film.
What these things do for a human that they don't do for a machine is to give one some empathy. I have a different outlook that I could not have obtained from reading a book. Life does not last forever and one must make it a joy and not waste it. Children are the great consolation against loss and, in my case, I fear death far less because it seems less important than failing my kid in some way.
My heart swells when I see a man being kind and showing love to his child - whether or not he is the best human in other ways I see that he has got the most critically important thing right.
The words can say this and even be inspiring but its difficult to really convey the feeling and one can be strongly tempted to ignore feelings. I don't envy people who are busy all the time and cannot take care of their kids no matter how rich they might be - in my view they're wasting something that's more important than trillions of dollars.
I have often thought this - a wave of people learn something and on come the next wave to relearn it all. They can read books but they don't really "get" what the books say and have to learn it all from personal experience all over again. It's not just America.
There's always going to be a slight mismatch between the supposed aim of any organisation and the incentives of the management and every single employee unless they're all shareholders and even then...
So I just tried this and it seems to work for a trivial case although you need 1 escape: